Post on 19-Mar-2019
1 j
SANDIA REPORT SAND85 - 0656 ' Unlimited Release . UC -63 Printed February 1986
Prototype Flat-Plate Building-Block Array Fields: Two-Year Field Evaluation
K. J. Snyder, J. W. Campbell, H. N. Post, M. G. Thomas
Preparad by Sandi. Nation" laboratorill Albuquerque, New Mexico 81185 ~lInd Livermore, Calilornia 94550 lor the United Stat .. Deparlment 01 Energy under Conlract OE-AC04-76DPOO789
SF2900Q(B-81 )
'-oed by Sandi. National L.boratories, operated for 1M United StaUl Del».lment 01 Ene'l)' by Sandia Co:poration. NOTICE: nul ..,port w .. prepared as an _nt of work aponlOled by an "laney of the United Stille! Government.. Neither the Uoiled States Governmenl IIOr any agency thereof. nor any of their empioyen. nor any of their c:ontrlc!.On, lubcont.ract.orll. or their employ_. make, Iny .... Ilrtallty. e. p._ or implied, or asaumK any lellal liability or I'ftpon.ibility for the accu racy, c:ompJetenese , or ...... fulneu of any informat ion. applI..atU$, product, or pr~ d;":I.-.:i, Of rep._ nt. thAt i1ll ...... would not infringe privately owned .i, hu.. Reference he ..... in toan)' lpecme commercial product, ProceM, OJ llervice by u.de name. tnldemark , manufactUrer, or otherwi&e, d~ not nflC:ftUI'ily oonatitutcl or imply ita enciorHment, recommendation. G!' ravorilll by the United SUUI Government, any q:ency thereof or any of their conlracton or l uboontractora. The vie ..... IlIld opiniona eaprmaed he"' in do not ntoeaarily ,tt.t<I or retlert thoee oIlhe United St.alft Government. any "eney Ihe~r or any 01 their contractors or IUbcontrlcto~.
Printed in the United Stilet of Amuica Availabl. from Nltional Technicallnformat;on Service U.S. Deparnnfnl of Com_ree ~28S Port Royal Road Sprinrfield, I/A 22 161
NTIS price cod ... Printed ~y: A03 Mieroflche copy: ADl
SAND85 - 0656 Unlimited Release
Printed February 1986
Distribution Category UC - 63
Prototype Flat-Plate Building-Block Array Fields: Two-Year Field Evaluation
K. J. Snyder Solar Operations Division
EG&G, WASe Albuquerque
J. W. Cam pbell, H. N. Post, M. G. Thomas Photovoltaic System Divisions Sandia National Laboratories
Albuquerque, NM 87185
Abstract An evaluation of two years of operation was conducted on two modular nat-plate array fields at the Photovoltaic Advanced Systems Test Facility at Sandia National Laboratories. The evaluation focused on foundations. structures, and the electrical subsystem component.c;. Module characteristics and array performance were also assessed. The two 30-kWp array fields were com,tructed in 1983 using low-cost approaches to minimize the balance-of-system (80S) costs. The results of the evaluation show little 80S degradation in the structures and foundations. Degradation in the electrical subsystem was minimal and included 0.5 % failures in the bypass di odes, as well as some preliminary evidence of bonding deterioration in the module junction box. Delamination of some modules was also observed and resulted in several module failures in one of the arrays, a result outside the objective of the 80S evaluation. The results of the evaluation sup· port the modularized low-cost approach for the design and installation of photovollaic system!>.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to express our appreciation to Win Boyer of EG&G
for the collection of performance data and to Dave Menicucci, Division
6221, for his review of the performance data.
4
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
MODULAR ARRAY FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
Battelle Design
Hughes Design
SUMMARY OF OPERATION EXPERIENCE
EVALUATION
Methodology and Data
Visual Survey of the Modules
Visual Survey of the BOS
Function Checks
Bi weekly Su rveys
COMPARISON OF INITIAL AND PRESENT CHARACTER ISTI CS
Modules
BOS
BOS Effects on Energy Production
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
ILLUSTRATI ONS
Battelle Prototype Array Field
Structure and Foundation Design for the Battelle Building Block
Hughes Prototype Array Field
Structure and Foundation Design for the Hughes Building Block
Shattered Front Cover of Solec Module in Battelle Field
Cl oseup of Solec Module Showing Area Where Fault to Module Frame Occurred
5
Page
9
10
10
12
14
14
21
21
26
30
31
31
34
34
36
39
41
11
11
1 3
13
15
15
ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued )
Figure
7 End View of Battelle Array Sho wing Support Structur e
8 Ba cks ides of So le c Modules in Bat telle Field Showing Cable Blocks , Cable Splices. and Bypass Diodes
9 Bypas s Diode o n So lec Module
1 0 Battelle Field Junction Box Showi ng Blocking Diode, Heat Sink, a nd Metal - Oxide Var i stors
11 Back View o f Hughes Array Sho wing Support Struc ture, Array Junction Box , and Solarex Modules
1 2 Cl oseup of Backside o f Hughe s Ar ray S ho wing AMP So l a r-Lo k Conne c tors and Bypass Di ode Housi ng
13 Cl oseup of Hughes Field Junction Box S howing Block ing
14
15
16
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Diodes , Heat Sinks, and Metal - Oxide Varistors
Closeup of Hughes Terminal Bl ock Showing Me tal- Ox id e Va ri stors
Su r vey Form for the Battelle Field
Su r vey Form for the Hughes Field
Example o f Corrosion Obse rved on So l ec Modu l e
Exampl e of Ba ck Splitting on Sole c Module
Example of Back Spl it t ing on So l arex Module
Detached Cable Block o n Sole c Module
Poorly Closed Mastic Pad in Battel l e Fie ld
Split Transfer Beam in Battelle Fi e l d
Bi weekly Su r vey Form
Front View o f S ho rted So l ec Module No . 480
Back View of Shorted So le c Module No . 480
Front Met a l Foo ting of Hughe s Array at Insta l lation
Back Co ncrete Footi ng of Hughes Array at Installation
Sampl e I-V Cu r v e from Hughes Field , March 1984
Sample I - V Curv e from Hughes Fie l d , Novembe r 1984
Samp l e I-V Curve fr om Battelle Field, Ma rch 1 984
Sample I -V Curve fr om Bat t e l le Field. November 1 984
6
Page
16
16
17
17
18
18
1 9
19
22
23
24
24
25
25
27
28
32
33
33
35
35
37
37
38
38
TABLES
Tabl e Page
1 Summary of Visual Survey 26
2 Summary of Condi tion of Mastic Pads 26
3 Summary of Condition of Wo oden Be ams 29
4 Circuit Test Data 39
7-8
PROTOTYPE FLAT-PLATE BUILDING-BLOCK ARRAY FIELDS:
2-YEAR FIELD EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION
For the past 4 yr, Sandia National Laboratories, as managers of
the U. S. Department of Energy Photovoltaic (PV) Systems Development
and Evaluation Projects, has been involved in a comprehensive program
to develop and evaluate modularized array fields that offer the lowest
possible array field balance-of-system (BOS) life-cycle costs. l The
development of these fields was heavily based on the experience gained
from a group of intermediate-sized, full-scale system experiments that
were installed, and originally operated, through the sponsorship of
the U. S. PV Program and that have since been transferred to private
ownership. Experience from three systems in this group contributed
significantly to the design of the modularized array fields. The
three systems are located in Beverly, MA; Lovington, NM; and El Paso,
TX. Array field BOS installation costs (1980) for these systems
ranged from $424/m 2 for Lovington to $543/m2
for the El Paso system.
The lessons learned from these systems identified the following areas 2
in which significant cost reductions could be made:
1. A favorable site that requires little site preparation should
be selected.
2. Standarized designs and installation techniques are required
to reduce costs to acceptable levels.
3. Off-the-shelf materialsl rather than specialty materials,
must be used in the designs.
Under contract to Sandia National Laboratories, Battelle-Columbus
Laboratories and Hughes Aircraft Company independently developed
9
designs for modularized building-block array fields. 3 - 6 Both designs
used commercially available PV modules of the same size (2 by 4 ft)
and output voltage. Each could be readily modified to accommodate
other module sizes. Complete engineering drawing packages and con-
struction specification documents for each design are available.
In 1983, two modular flat-plate array fields were installed at
the PASTF, located in Albuquerque, NM, as a part of this program: one
using the Battelle design, the other using the Hughes design. Each
field has a peak-power rating of approximately 30 kw. This report
details the evaluation of each of the two array fields and identifies
degradation in the BOS that has occurred during the first 2 yr of
operation and the effect of this degradation on the electrical per
formance of the fields.
MODULAR ARRAY FIELD DESCRIPTIONS
Battelle Design
The Battelle modular array field, shown in Figure I, consists of
three building blocks. The building block corresponds to a 400-Vdc,
10 kW, source circuit equipped with one junction box. Two 5-Vdc
modules, each containing six parallel strings of cells and a bypass
diode, are wired in parallel, and 82 pairs are wired in series to form
the building block. The high degree of paralleling and use of diodes
minimizes the effect of cell failures and allows for a 20-yr operation
with a maximum estimated power degradation of 15%, assuming normal
cell failure rates and no module replacement. All field wiring is
direct-burial cabling. The continuous metal support structure is
attached to a buried bare-capper-wire counterpoise network to provide
a uniform site ground.
The low-cost structure and foundation design is shown in Figure 2.
The support system incorporates galvanized steel structural support
members and galvanized steel foundation stakes (highway-sign posts)
driven approximately 3.5 ft into the ground. Treated wood beams (20-yr
or greater lifetime) permit simple fastening of the structural members
10
Figure 1. Battelle prototype Array Field.
b .. m &lpport
Higllw8Y-'ign ruk.
Figure 2 . Structure and Foundation Design for the Battelle Building Block.
using lag screws and provide cost-reducing flexibility in a lignment
during installation.
11
The Battelle field used PV modules procured from Solec Interna
tional, Inc. These modules are 2 x 4 ft in size and carry a designa
tion of Model S-4611. The Gardner-Zemke Company of Albuquerque was
the construction subcontractor on the project and was primarily
responsible for all aspects of the installation, including materials
(except modules) and labor. For the Battelle field, the overall
direct array field BOS cost in 1980 dollars was $121.88/m2 of collec
tor area.
Hughes Design
The Hughes modular array field, shown in Figure 3, also consists
of three building blocks. The building block is a ±200-Vdc, 10-kW,
bipolar source circuit that consists of two 200-Vdc monopolar subar -
rays positioned in an east-west row. Each subarray has 2 parallel
circuits of 40 series-connected 5-vdc modules, each containing a
bypass diode and
high reliability
6 parallel cell strings. This design a l so exhibits
and tolerance for cell failures. A daisy chain
module-to-module wiring scheme is used in which the circuits run in
horizontal rows, fold back on themselves, and terminate in a common
junction box at one end of the subarray structure . The modules are
connected using quick-disconnect plug-in connectors . Power from eac h
building block is routed from a subarray junction box to a power
collection center (PCC) via direct-burial cabling . The PCC contains a
standard circuit breaker switch and bus panel, fault detection sens
ing, and a power control module (PCM) for every two building blocks.
Likewise, the PCM contains transient protection devices (metal-oxide
varisters (MOVs)), blocking diodes, and snubbers . Thus, the control
of the array field is sectionalized in 20-kW increments.
The structure and foundation design, illustrated in Figure 4,
uses a galvanized steel-channel support structure and a hybrid founda-
tion. The front foundation is a buried metal foot that is an integral
part of the grounding network; the rear foundation is a co ncrete curb.
The Hughes modular array field uses 2- by 4-ft, polycrystalline
cell, PV modules procured from Solarex Corporation.
12
Figure 3. Hughes Prototype Array Field.
GALVAHIZED STEEL-----'--_o_ CHANNELS
METAL FOOT
~- 2,,4 FOOT SOLAR CELL MODULE
SUBARRAY JUNCTION BOX
CURB
PVC CABLE RISERS FOR DIRECT BURIAL CABLE
Figure 4. Structure and Foundation Design for the Hughes Building Block.
Abbott Mechanical Contractors, Inc. of Albuquerque was the construc
tion subcontractor responsible for installing the field. For the
Hughes field the overall direct array field BOS cost in 1980 dollars
was $134 . 27/m2 of collector area.
13
SUMMARY OF OPERATION EXPERIENCE
S ince installation, both array fields have delivered energy to
fixed resistive l oads or to the utility grid. The output of each
array field was measured and recorded over the 2-yr period. During
this period, no energy-related degradation has been observed in the
structural SUbsystems of either array field. Minimal degradation of
the electrical subsystems has been observed but has not appreciably
affected energy production~ however, all failures were repaired or
replaced.
Only one incident was observed in the Hughes field. A circuit
breaker used as a switch to short-circuit the array field failed.
This had no effect on energy production. Several module failures
occurred in the Battelle field during the same period. Electrical
shorts from the circuit to the frame developed in six modules. In
some cases, the rapid heating at the point of the short circuit caused
the front surface of the module to shatter (see Figures 5 and 6) . Two
other modules failed due to open circuits, and the connections between
the module and the output lead had to be resoldered. Also, a total of
five bypass diodes , about 0 . 5% of the total number of diodes, have
fai l ed open in the two fields during the first 2 yr.
EVALUATION
The objective of this evaluation was to determine what changes
have occurred in these two arrays since their installation that could
affect long-term operating cost and array energy production . Mainte-
nance and repair of the BOS, because of degradation, may be major
factors in system cost . The rate at which energy production degrades
is important in estimating the useful life of the system, a critical
parameter in determining the amortized costs of the energy production.
The evaluation of the BOS considered the following elements:
structural integrity, electrical integrity, module bypass diodes, and
electrical protection components. Figures 7 through 14 depict the
14
Figure 5. Shattered Front Cover of Solec Module in Battelle Field.
Figure 6 . Closeup of Solec Module showing Area Where Fault to Module Frame Occurred.
15
Figure 7. End View of Battelle Array Showing Support Structure .
Figure 8. Backsides of Solec Modules in Battelle Field Showi ng Cable Blocks, Cable Splice, and Bypass Diodes.
16
Figure 9. Bypass Diode on solee Module.
Figure 10. Battelle Field Junction Box Showing Blocking Diode, Heat Sink, and Metal-Oxide Varistors.
17
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Back view of Hughes Array Showing Support Structure, Array Junction Box, and Solarex Modules.
Closeup of Backside of Hughes Array Showing AMP Solar-Lok Connectors and Bypass Diode Housing.
18
.... '"
w w-' ~.
..
Figure 13 . Closeup of Hughes Field Junction Box Showing Blocking Di odes, Heat Sinks, and Metal - Oxide Varistors .
Figure 14 . Closeup of Hughes Terminal Block Showing Metal- Oxide Varistors.
items of interest. While structural integrity does not direct ly con -
tribute to energy production, the loss of structural integrity could
result in damage to the modules and reduction of energy production.
Electrical integrity affects the energy delivered by the system
vis- a - vis the energy produced by the modules. For exampl e, a shorted
module bypass diode can reduce the system energy
bypass diode will
by shunting the
eliminate t he energy module output. An ope n module
produced by a complete source circ uit if the same module also develops
an open circuit. As a specific example , all of the modules in a
Hughes source string are in series, and an ope n circuit in a module
a nd bypass diode would interrupt the power flow from 16% (one source
c ircuit ) of the field. The problem is not as severe in the Battelle
array, where two modules (with their bypass diodes) are connected in
parallel before being series-connected with o ther modu le pairs. In
the Battelle array, four failures (two module fai l ures and two diode
failures) must occur simultaneously in a paralleled module pair to
interrupt the power flow from that complete source circuit .
The evaluation of the electrical performance cons idered the
following elements: module integrity, source- string current-voltage
characteristics , source- string-to-ground leakage currents, and energy
production. Module integrity is impor tant to performance because
module outpu t can be reduced if the environment penetrates the module
and creates leakage paths outside of the source string . Source-string
cur rent-voltage characteristics can be used to determine changes in
performance by modeling the string i n terms of a series resistance,
shunt resistance, diode factor, short-circuit c urrent, and ope n
circuit voltage . Observed changes in the model parameters over a
period of time may lead to determining the rate of performance degra
dation . Leakage currents to ground diminish the energy delivered by
the array and may be dependent on existing environmental conditions,
especially moisture . Energy production is the primary factor used in
performance evaluation . Comparison of recent energy production with
that just after installation und er similar e nvironmental conditions
may also lead t o estimates of the expec ted useful life o f the array.
20
Methodology and Data
The 2-yr evaluation consisted at an in-depth study and several
biweekly surveys. The in-depth study was done in two parts: a visual
survey and a series ot function and performance tests. Biweekly
surveys, which followed the in-depth survey, covered essentially the
same areas as the latter but were not as thorough. Particular atten-
tion was paid to the worst of the potential problem areas that were
found during the in-depth survey.
For purposes of this evaluation, each array was viewed as con
sisting of two segments: the PV modules (as manufactured by Solec and
Solarex), and the BOS, which included the site itself and all parts
and structures not integral to the individual modules.
Visual Survey of the Modules
The serial numbers and locations of each module in each array
were recorded on survey forms (Figures 15 and 16). The front surfaces
of the 492 Battelle and 480 Hughes modules were examined to identify
modules showing corrosion of the interconnect busses and what appeared
to be separation of the glass and the encapsulant, which might permit
water seepage. An example of the corrosion is shown in Figure 17.
The back surfaces were examined for splitting or other damage.
Examples of such damage are shown in Figure 18 (Battelle) and in
Figure 19 (Hughes).
Module cable blocks (984 on Battelle and 960 on Hughes ) were
checked by gently tugging each cable. If there was no discernible
motion, an ItOK~ rating was given (indicated by a check mark on the
form). Slight motion of the block and a visible gap was rated "L" for
Loose, and a block with considerable movement or completely detached
was rated "VL" (see Figure 20) or "O~ for Very Loose or Off.
summarizes the results of the visual survey.
21
Table 1
'" '"
BATTELLE SURVEY: ROW Modute No. Pad -Ipanel ConnectOf a.am CondllJon I Metal J TIMO Bot. cond. 1 Po. . I Nea. -lathT""-ooth DlrectJ Comment. ISUoDOrt Siruct.
Figure 15. Survey Fo rm f or the Battelle Field.
Modu .. ·C ....
and Surlec .. -------
• • III .i t- o
« 2 C
u; ~
8-" .i!
III ... 0 A. •
li <.> .. ; 0
~ ~
, .. 0 J< a:
, "8 "
> • III > II a: • ~
c c
'" 0
<.>
'" III X • • <-' z ~ " • M
X .. I-
" N , " 0
" -
"
23
" o '"
>. • > " o
OJ
• " 0
"-'"
Figure 17. Example of Corrosion Observed on Solec Module.
Figure 18 . Example of Back Splitting on Solec Module .
24
~-----~
Figure 19. Example of Back Splitting on Solarex Module.
Figure 20. Detached Cable Block on Salee Module.
25
Table 1
Summary of the Visual Survey
Back Loose Se l2:aration Corrosion S12:1ittins Cable Blks
Battelle 118/492 63/492 10/492 133/984
Hughes 17/480 0/480 8/480 12/960
Visual Survey of the BOS
The electrical insulating mastic pads (Battelle array only) were
~ated on thei~ appa~ent elect~ical insulating abi li ties and on their
appearance. A pad was rated as " solid" if it showed no gaps and had a
neat appearance . Pads with small edge gaps and not quite as neat in
appearance were rated as "acceptable." A "questionable" rating was
given to pads showing large edge gaps and a poor appearance. Co nnec-
tions with exposed crimps or with missing pads were rated nfailed."
Eight connections in Row Five and all connections in Row six were
taped rather than padded, leaving a total of 202 padded connections .
Table 2 summarizes this inspection.
Table 2
Summary of Condition of Mastic Pads
Condition Number of Cases
Solid 119
Acceptable 63
Questionable 16
Failed 4
Total 202
All of the mastic pads that had pulled apart (see Figure 21) were
supplied by one manufacturer. Pads from two different manufacturers
were used, and no problems have been observed with the pads supplied
26
Figure 21. Poorly Closed Mastic Pad in Battelle Field.
by the second manufacturer. Therefore, it appears that one batch of
pads (not the pads themselves) were deficient. At this point, the
deterioration of the pad- seal presents more of a safety concern than
one of performance.
The Solar-Lok connectors (Hughes array only) were examined for
full insertion, and several random connector plugs were checked for
corrosion and crimp strength. No problems were found.
Above-ground metal support structures were examined for corro
sion, physical damage, and fastener integrity. No corrosion or damage
of any significance was found on either array: only minor rusting on
the cut ends of the frame members was noticed. Four loose bolts were
found on the Battelle array, and 22 were found on the Hughes array.
These appear to have been overlooked on installation.
27
The wooden transfer beams (Battelle only) were examined for flaws
such as checking, splitting, warping, and twisting . A rating scale
was used to rate the beam conditions. A "good" rating indicated a
beam that was in good condition with virtually no flaws. A "fair"
rating indicated a beam that was still structurally sound but had
moderate flaws. A "questionable " rating indicated a beam that was of
debatable st~uctural integrity with a considerable number and/or
degree of flaws. A "failed" rating indicated sufficient problems (see
Figure 22) to allow or possibly cause damage to the modules. The
results are tabulated in Table 3.
Figure 22. Split T~ansfer Beam in Battelle Field.
Although cracks have developed in about 10% of the wood support
members, no concommitant problems have resulted. Splitting of a
member at an end or a complete break in the middle of the member could
cause damage to the module and require replacement. The cracking
28
Table 3
Summary of Condition of Wooden Beams
Condition
Good
Fair
Que stionable
Failed
Number of Cases
121
88
35
8
appea r s to be due to excessive moisture loss . Duri ng post
installation inspection, it was determined that several wooden beams
did not meet the specifications. Therefore, because there have been
no observed problems and because some of the wood received was "out
o f-spe c ," there is no basis to infer that the design is in any way
deficient in this area.
The southwest s take on the Battelle a rray was chosen for ins pec
tion because it is located at the lowest corner of the field wher e
runoff water col lects. There was no sign of corrosion .
On the Hughes array, there was no evidence of spalling or other
deterioration on the concrete rear footing, nor was there any indica
tion of deterioration on the front footing. The southwest corner was
chosen here also because it was the lowest spot in t he Hughes array
f ield.
All junction . and electrical boxes were examined, and no problems
were found.
The array site was inspected primarily for the effectiveness of
the soil sterilizer, indicated by the amount and l ocat ion of vegeta
tion growth. There were a few weeds starting to gro w along the north
edge and southeast corner of the Hughes field. No growth was seen in
the Battelle field.
29
Function Checks
The second part of the survey was to test for proper functioning
of the various electrical components and devices and to determine the
performance level of the arrays.
Bypass Diodes -- Both arrays were placed on fixed loads for this
test. The diodes in the Battelle array were checked by placing a
clamp-on ammeter on a lead of each of the two diodes in each panel and
observing the current, first with the panel unshaded, then shaded. No
current when unshaded and divided current when shaded indicated prop-
erly functioning diodes. A shorted diode would have been indicated by
current in an un shaded panel; no shorted diodes were found. No cur-
rent in a diode of a shaded panel indicated an open diode~ four open
diodes were found.
The diode leads on the Hughes modules were not long enough to use
a clamp-on meter. A voltmeter was used to observe the voltage across
the diode, first with the module unshaded, then with the module
shaded. Individual module voltage when shaded and a forward voltage
drop across the diode when shaded indicated a functioning diode.
Module voltage when shaded or a forward voltage drop when unshaded
would have indicated an open or shorted diode, respectively. No
shorted diodes were found; one open diode was found.
Blocking Diodes -- The blocking diodes for both arrays were
tested in two ways. A preliminary check was made using the diode test
setting on a digital multimeter. A further test for reverse leakage
current was made with a Tektronix 576 curve tracer, and the results
were compared to published specifications for each diode type. All
blocking diodes were within specifications.
Fuses and Metal-oxide Varistors -- The fuses and MOVs in both
arrays were visually inspected only. There was no evidence of any
damaged MOVs or any reason to believe that they had functioned since
installation.
30
Biweekly Surveys
The biweekly surveys were an attempt at detecting any s hort-term
degradation or changes. Items that had been flagged as potential
problem spots during the in-depth survey were g iven special attention.
six of these surveys were done on each array, using the same basic
te.chniques that were used for the 2-yr survey . A sample of the for m
used to record observations is shown in Figure 23.
During the period of biweekly surveys, four Battelle modules
developed shorts to their frames, r esu lting in shattered cover glass
and burned backing and encapsulant. Figures 24 and 25 show the
effects of one such short. Of these four modules, only one had shown
any visible evidence of change (corrosion) during the 2-yr survey.
There were no other changes in either the Battelle or the Hughes
modules.
There were no noticeable changes in any of the BOS components in
either array during the biweekly survey period.
No changes in the appearance or functioning of the diodes, fuses,
or MOVs were detected in any of the biweekly surveys.
Efforts were made throughout the biweekly survey period to moni
tor the ground currents of each array under different conditions.
Attempts to monitor and document the ground currents in the Battelle
field proved futile because of their highly variable and sporadic
nature. Ground currents in the Hughes field were essentially zero
under all conditions.
COMPARISON OF INITIAL AND PRESENT CHARACTERISTICS
The initial surveys, done immediately following assembly of the
arrays, did not include documentation on many of the areas that were
covered in the 2-yr survey .. Further, the data collected in the
initial su r vey were directed toward construction acceptance and were
31
Figure 24. Front View of Shorted Solec Module No. 480
Figure 25. Back View of Shorted Solec Module No. 480
33
not documented in a form for comparison with survey data to be col-
lected in the future. Consequently, comparison was limited to the
areas cO.vered in the ini tial survey. Also, since much of the survey
process is visual inspection, much of the evaluation is sUbjective.
Modules
The only suspicious items noted initially were yellowing corners
in four Battelle modules. These modules do not appear to have changed
at all since the initial survey. As mentioned above, six other
modules failed and had to be replaced. No initial problems with the
Hughes modules, front or back (except for minor shipping damage, which
had been repaired prior to the initial survey), were noted.
The initial survey identified 99 loose cable blocks on the
Battelle modules. The 2-yr survey shows 133 loose blocks (Table 1).
No loose blocks were initially found for the Hughes modules.
BOS
The first mastic pad survey was done in April 1983. This report
listed 40 bad pads, but the criteria used for these ratings were not
given by the inspector. The 2-yr survey shows 20 bad pads (rated
"questionable" or "failed") (Table 2).
The initial survey of the wooden transfer beams on the Battelle
array describes six that were in bad condition. Photographs docu-
men ted the condition of a few selected beams. There have been no
measurable or noticeable changes in these beams. Eight bad beams
(rated "failed") were recorded during the 2-yr survey (Table 3), in
cluding the six recorded initially.
The initial condition of the in-ground structures is shown in the
photographs in Figures 26 and 27. The current condition indicates
that there were no problems initially.
34
Figure 26. Front Metal Footing of Hughes Array at Installation
Figure 27. Back Concrete Footing of Hughes Array at Installation
35
There was no weed growth initially in either array field.
very few weeds grew in the Hughes site after 2 yr.
Only a
No fuses have blown during normal operations.
BOS Effects on Energy Production
The changes in the BOS aspects of the array fields could be
detrimental to energy production if they require time and expense to
correct. Thus far in the discussion, we have not directly addressed
any effects on energy production in the two array fields. Component
degradation in the array fields known to affect energy production
include failed diodes (four in the Battelle and one in the Hughes
field) and eight failed modules observed in the Battelle field. Each
of these components was replaced once the failures were detected.
Other changes in the array fields might also contribute to energy
loss. current-voltage (I-V) curves of source strings of each array
were taken using a Gemini curve tracer. The data were stored on
flexible discs and processed through normal PASTF channels. Samples
of I-V curves from 20-kW source circuits of the Hughes array are shown
in Figures 28 and 29, and similar samples from the Battelle array are
shown in Figures 30 and 31. As shown in Table 4, the time period
between the two sets of data on each array was approximately a months.
The data presented do not indicate any appreciable (i.e., mea-
sureable) degradation over the a-month period. The data further
indicate power ratings of about 29 kW for the Hughes array and about p
28 kW P
for the Battelle array under peak conditions. These values are
very nearly the original ratings, but
verified through field measurements.
the original ratings were not
Maximum power data were also
available during the installation period, and regression analysis did
not indicate any degradation.
In summary, no energy reduction could be observed. Thus, we
conclude that within the accuracy and precision o f the measurements
and analyses, the BOS changes noted in this report did not affect the
performance of the array fields.
36
o
8
o
o ... :;: z w
'" '" ::> 0 U o
~
o
o o
DATE 810302. TIME 103817. REC. NO. SO
~
\ 1\
0. 0 SO.O 100.0 J50.0 200,0 250. 0 300.0 350. 0 400 .0 -4SO . 0 500.0
VOLTAGE
Figure 28. Sample I-V Curve from Hughes Field, Marc h 1984
60.13
h e ·52 .4 FI"'P.t: PIl!!! X • 15860 Watt s 50 . 0 v"p - 353 Vott :s - • "5 FInop.t:
~ ~ -~
4" . 13
~ a Je.i!I > ~ ~ 21:L0
10 . 13
'Voe - 466 Vo 1 t s
100 "'" , .. "'" sao ft(RAY VOLT AGE (VOlTS )
Flgure 29. Sample I-V Curve from Hughes Field I Novembe r 1 9 84
3 7
o
8
o o ~
o o N
o o
DATE 810308. TIME 131903. REC. NO. 125
.......... ~
'\ \
\ 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200 . 0 250 .0 300 .0 350.0 400 .0 450.0 500.0
VOLTAGE
Fig ure 30. Sample I-V Cur ve from Battel le Field, March 1984
613.13
I", .:: '" S3 RIIp'" P", ,, x '" 192113 Watt.., 'Jmp '" 394 lIo lts
- 5121.13 - <16.3 Anps
~ ~ -"
"0.13 z ~ a 313 . 111 > ~ ~ 213.13
113.0
Voe '" SL3 Volts
, .. '00 '00 .00 s •• MRflY VOLT~E (VOLTS)
Figure 31 . Sample I - V Curve from Batte lle Field, November 1 984
38
Table 4
Circuit Test Data
Description Hughes Battelle
Date 3-02-84 11-27-84 3-08-84 11-15-8 4
Time 10:38 10: 4 2 13:49 13: 01
Total normal inso. (W/m2) 965 957 960 966
Ambient air temp. ( de9. C) 13.5 0.6 15.7 13.5
Approx. ce ll temp. (deg . c) 42 28 48 48
Maximum power (kW) 17787 18210 16180 15860
Vol tage at maximum power 369 394 347 353
Current at maximum power 48.1 46.3 46.6 45.0
Efficiency at max. power 7.6% 7.9% 7.4% 7.2%
Fill fac tor .66 .67 .65 .65
CONCLUSIONS
Two 30-kW modularized array fields were installed in the PASTF p
as part of a
techniques.
program
Readily
to develop low-cost BOS designs a nd installation
avai lable materials and standardized designs
fields.
led
to considerable savings for the installation of these two 2 Specifically, previous BOS costs exceeded $400/m for each of three
fielded systems, while the modular array fields were installed for 2
less than $140/m. These cost reductions were obtained despite the
fact that inexperienced contractors were employed to install the
fields.
To verify the applicability of these designs and techniques, we
established a program to characterize the BOS aspects of these fields
over time. This report describes the changes observed in the first
2 yr after the initial in stallation. No significant eve nt s have been
observed, and the energy production from the fields remains unde
graded. This result appears to verify the specific designs employed
39
and the modular design approach. Nevertheless, longer-term evaluation
is planned, and results from the continuing evaluation will be used to reevaluate this conclusion.
A number of changes have occurred in the fields. Five of nearly
a thousand bypass diodes have failed op?n and have been replaced.
This type of failure rate appears to be somewhat higher than predicted
but has not resulted in any significant loss of energy production due
to replacement. Some of the wooden supports used in the Battelle
field have experienced more cracking than anticipated, but the cracks
have in no way affected the operation of the field. In addition, the
s uppl ier agreed that some of the lumber did not meet specification .
Some loose nuts and bolts have been observed and tightened. Again,
this maintenance was performed when needed and at virtually no cost.
One method of module interconnection utilized mastic pads covering an
infield wire-to-wire connection. Some of these pads are coming apart
and may eventually lead to a safety and /o r corrosion problem .
However, there is evidence that the materials used were "not in spec."
not
The maj or changes seen in the fields relate
really a part of the objectives for this BOS
to modules and are
evaluation . However,
we have observed some delamination and some splitting of the "tedIar"
backings of the modules. For the Solarex modules, these changes
cannot be correlated with any observable degradation in performance.
On the other hand , eigh t So lec modul es failed in the 2-yr evaluation
period. If these modules had not been replaced, s i gnificant e nergy
degradation would have resulted.
In conclusion, the low-cost hardware and insta ll ation procedures
used in the modular approach to fixed, flat-plate design and installa -
tion for two fields at the PASTF appear to be acceptable. Very little
BOS degradati o n has been observed , and little maintenance has been
required. At thi s time, there is no ev idence that the simplicity of
the designs and use of readily available materials has in any way
decreased the expected lifetime or performance of the array fields.
4 0
REFERENCES
1. H. N. Post and E. L. Burgess, "New Designs and Installations of photovoltaic Array Fields with Low Balance-of-System Costs," Proceedin a of the 10th Ener Technolo Conference, Washington, DC, Fe ruary
2. M. Thomas, The Value of PV Systems Experiments: volume I: A Preliminar Assessment of the Lessons Learned from Nine Intermediate-Size Systems, SAND84-0900 I Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories, August 1984).
3. D. C. Carmichael et aI, Development of a Standard Modular Design for Low-Cost Flat-Panel Photovoltaic Array Fields, SAND81-7183 (Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories, November 1982). WorK performed by Battelle-Columbus Laboratories.
4. G. T. Noel, Installation of a Modular Photovoltaic Array Field with Low Balance-of-System Costs, SAND83-7027 (Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories, January 1984). Work performed by Battelle-Columbus Laboratories.
5. G. J. Naff, Photovoltaic Array Field Optimization and Modularity Study, SAND81-7193 (Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories, March 1983). Work performed by Hughes Aircraft Company.
6. Modular photovoltaic Array Field, SAND83-7028 (Albuquerque: Sandia National Laboratories, September 1984). work performed by Hughes Aircraft Company.
41
DISTRIBUTION:
ABLE CH EMICAL TECHNOLOGY 1 Park Plaza 3250 Wilshire Blvd ., Suite 808 Loa Angeles, CA 90010 Attn: Dr. J o hn Lim
ACUREX (3) 485 Clyde Ave. Mt. View, CA 94042 Attn: Bob Spencer
Dan Rosen Mitchell Wool
THE AEROSPACE CORP. P.O. Box 92957 MS M3-386 Los Angeles , CA 90009 Attn: Edward Simburger
Stanley L. Leonard
AlA FOUNDATION 1735 New York Av enue NW Washington, DC 20006 Attn: George Royal
ALABAMA SOLAR ENERGY CTR. Universi ty of Alabama at
Huntsville Hunts ville, AL 35899 Attn: Don Wallace
ALL STAR ELECTRIC CO . 11708 Candelaria NE Unit A Albuquerque, NM 871 12 Attn: Michael LaVine
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS (AESI) (3) 20442 Sun Va lley Dr. Laguna Beach , CA 9265 1 Attn: Richard B. Ashby
Allan Mayfield William Todor of
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS (AESI) 114 32 Pe na Way Mira Lama, CA 9 1752 Attn: Rick A. Gros
4 2
AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION 89 Cambridge Street Bur l ington, MA 01803 Attn: Ervin Lyon
AMP, INCORPORATED 230 Commerce Drive Largo, FL 33540 Attn : Marvin H. Jones
APPLIED SOLAR ENERGY CORP. P.O. Box 1212 City o f Industry, CA 9 1745 Attn: Ken Ling
ARCO SOLAR INC. (7) P. O . Box 4400 Woodland Hills , CA 9 1365 Attn: Je ff Rosen
Jame s Arne tt Bill Yerkes Gary Shus hnar Rober t Reinhold
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ( 2 ) 411 North Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85036 At tn : Tom Lepley
Pete Eckert
ARIZONA STATE UNI VERS I TY College of Engineering Tempe, AZ 8528 1 Attn: Paul Russell
ASSOCIATED SPECIALISTS 90 4 Ken ter Way Los Angeles, CA 900 49 Attn: Byron L . Fry
AUBURN UNIVERSITY 207 Dunstan Hall Electrica l Engr . Dept . Auburn, AL 36849 Attn: Ali I mece
BDM CORPORAT I ON (1 ) 1801 Randolph Road SE Al buquerque , NM 87106 Attn: Ed Dibello
RAY BAHM & ASSOC IATES 2513 Kimberly Court HW Albuquerque, NM 87120 Attn: Ray Bahul
BATTELLE-COLUMBUS LABS (3) 505 Kin g Avenue Columbus OH 44320 Attn: Don Carmichal
Gerry Noel Graham Alexander
BATTELLE- PACIFIC Sigma IV Building Richland, WA 99352 Attn: Ray Watts
BECHTEL NATIONAL INC . (2) P . O. Box 3965 San Francisco, CA 94119 Attn: Walter Stolte
Andy Franklin
BOSS, INC. 7745 East Redfield Road Sco ttsdale, AZ 85260 Attn: Brad O'Mara
C . T. SAB ASSOCIATES 403 Pond Ridge Lane Urbana, IL 61801 Attn : C . T. Sah
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Eng'g & Appl. Sci., 209 Keck 1241 N. Holliston Ave. Pasadena, CA 91104 Attn: Ri c hard C . Flagan
CARBONE INVESTMENT KGMT. CORP. 570 Dwight Place Berkeley, CA 94704 Attn: Robert Carbone
CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIV . 115 Scaife Hall Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Attn: Robert F . Sekerka
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY Department of Macro=olecular Science Cleveland, OH 44106 Attn: Jack L. Koenig
43
CHEVRON RESEARCH CO . 576 Standard Avenue Richmond, CA 94B02 Attn : Robert Creek
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY Electrical Engineer ing Department Clemson, SC 29631 Attn: Jay Lathrop
CORNELL UNIVERSITY Material Sciences & Eng ineering Ba rd Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 Attn : Die ter E. Ast
DOE/ALa (5) Albuquerque Operation s Office P. O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87 11 5 Att n : D. Krenz
o. Graves N. Lackey H. Turpie B. McCarty
DOE/ HQ (4) Forresta l Bui l d i ng 100 Independence Avenue SW Wa shington, DC 20585 Attn : Andrew Krantz
EG&G
Mort Prince Vince Rice R. H. Anna n
Kirtland Operations Albuquerque, NM 87 185 Attn: B. Boyson
E. I. DU PONT COMPANY Chestnut Run, F&FD Dept. Wilmington, DE 19898 Attn: J. D. C. Wilson
E . I. DU PONT COMPANY Finishes & Fabricated Dept. Garrett Mill Bldg . Barley Mill Plaza Wilmi ng t on , DE 19898 Attn : E. M. Kl epper
EPRI (2) P. O. Box 10412 P~lo Alto , CA 94303 Attn: Roger Taylor
Ed DeMao
ELECTRINK, INC. 7554 Trade St . San Diego, CA 92121 Attn: Joseph Parker
ENERGY ANALYSIS. INC. 12160 Claretta Street Sylmar, CA 91342 Attn: Fred Bartels
ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICE 1675 West Maple Street Troy, HI 48084 Attn: Richard Blieden
ENERGY DAILY 815 15th Street NW Sui te 400 Washington. DC 20005 Attn: Llewellyn King
ENERGY ENGINEERING, INC. 4616 McLeod Road NE Albuquerque, NM 87109 Attn: Thomas Feldman
ENERGY MATERIALS CORPORATION (2) P.O . Box 1143 Sterling Road South Lancaster, MA 01561 Attn: Herbert E. Bates
William J. Little
ENTECH. INC. P. O. Box 612246 DFW Airport. TX 75261 Attn: Mark O'Neill
ENTROPICS P . O. Box 452891 Los Angeles, CA 90042 Attn: Seid M. Ardekanl
FLORIDA SOLAR ENERGY CENTER (2) 300 State Road 401 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Attn: Henry Healey
Gerard Ventre
44
GENERAL ELECTRIC Building 37 Room 478 Schenectady, NY 12345 Attn: Robert Guees
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY 333 Piedmont Avenue Atlanta, GA 30303 Attn: Gary Birdwell
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY P. O. Box 4545 Shenandoah, GA 30302 Attn: Edward J. Ney
GEORGIA TECH EES (3) 2 11 O'Keefe Atalnta, GA 30332 Attn : Larry Banta
George Cokkinides Sid Firstman
GILA RIVER PRODUCTS Chandler, AZ 85224 Attn: William R. Bell
HEERY ENERGY CONSULTANTS 880 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30367 Attn: Glenn Jardine
HELIONETICS 17312 Eastman Street Irvine, CA 92714 Attn: Larry Suelzle
HEMLOCK SEMICONDUCTOR COMPANY 12334 Geddes Hemlock, MI Attn: Arvid
James
Road 48628 Arvidson R. McCormick
HUGHES AIRCRAFT P. O. Box 9399 Building A1 MIs 40843 Long Beach, CA 90810 Attn: George Naff
lEE 345 E. 47th Street New York, NY 100 17 Attn: Robert Klein
INTERSOL POWER CORPORATION (2) 11901 W. Cedar Ave. Lakewood, CO 80228 Attn: John Sanders
Dick Stegeman
J.C. SCHUMACHER (2) 580 Airport Road Oceanside, CA 92054 Attn: Stephen M. Lord
Joseph C . Schumacher
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY (3) 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, CA 91109 Attn: Russ Sugimura
W. T. Callaghan Ron Ross
KELLAM, BIRD, JOHNSON, INC. 612 North Park Street Columbus, OK 43215 Attn: John Ayres
K,{OCERA 8611 Balboa Avenue San Diego, CA 92123-1580 Attn: William Everitt
R. Alan Panton Luis Alvarez
LOS ANGELES DEPT. OF WATER & POWER 111 North Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 9005 1 Attn: William W. Engels
Kevin G. McAvoy
MC DONNELL DOUGLAS ASTRONAUTICS 00. 5301 Bal sa Avenue, MiS 431, 10-3 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Attn: Lloyd E. Sanchez
MERIDAN CORP . (2) 5113 Leesburg Pike Suite 700 Falls Church, VA 22041 Attn: Brad MaCleer
Judy Hogan
METAL IRON CO. P. O. Box 4590 Ft. Worth, TX 76106 Attn: Arthur Varnoos
45
MIT/ENERGY LAB-NE RES (3) 711 Virginia Road concord, MA 01742 Attn: Miles Russell
Daniel Bergman Ed Kern
MOBIL SOLAR ENERGY CORP. (4) 16 Hockory Dr. Waltham, MA 02254 Attn: Bob L. Hammond
Catherine M. Joyce Juris P. Kalejs Fritz V. MaId
MONOSOLAR, INC. 8635 Aviation Blvd. Inglewood, CA 9030 1 Attn: Bulent M. Basal
NASA HEADQUARTERS - Code RJE 600 Independence Ave., SW Wa shington, DC 20546 Attn: Don H. Calahan
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (2) Montreal Road Ottawa, ONTARIO, canada K1A OR6 Attn: Siegfried Karius
Glen Rumbold
NMSEI (2) P.O. Box 3S0L Las Cruces, NM 88003 Attn: Ve rn Risser
Harry Zwibel
NMSIDC 5301 Central NE Suite 705 Albuquerque, NM 87108 Attn: Leland Alhorn
OAX RIDGE NATIONAL LAB P. O. Box X Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Attn: John Stovall
Stephen I. Kaplan
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF ENERGY 56 Wellesley Street West Toronto, Canada M7A 237 Attn: Ian Lewis
ONTARIO RESEARCH FOUNDATION Engineering Sciences Division Sheridan Park Res. community Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5K1B3 Attn: Michael Westcott
05TRACO PHOTOVOLTAIC CO. (2) Phillip Drive Princeton , NJ 08540 Attn : Jeremiah P. Ostriker
Robert B . Strassler
PG&E (2) 3400 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583 Attn : Steve Hester
Kay Firor
PROA 4019 Edith Blvd . NE Building 2B Albuquerque, NM 87107 Attn: Conrad Seagroves
PV ENERGY SYSTEMS 2401 Childs' Lane Alexandria , VA 22308 Attn: Paul D. Maycock
PVI PUBLISHING 2250 N. 16th Street Suite 103 Phoenix, AZ 85006 Attn: Mark Fitzgerald
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 3400 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 93483 Attn: Keene M. Matsuda
POLYDYNE 1230 Sharon Park Drive Suite 61 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Attn: Peter Bos
POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OF NEW YORK 333 Jay Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Attn: Ann-Christine Albertson
46
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS CO. 80 Park Plaza Floor 16A P.O. Box 570 Newark, NJ 07101 Attn: Harry Roman
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO P.O. Box 840 Room 420 Denver, CO 8020 1 Attn: Jim Wilson
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW MEXICO (2) Alvarado Square Albuquerque, NM 87158 Attn: Frank Burcham
Don Martinez
PURDUE UNIVERSITY (2) Potter Bldg. Rm 322 West Lafayette, IN 47907 Attn: Geraldine Vest
Robert Vest
QUEENSLAND FINANCIAL GROUP 350 S. Figueroa, 1498 Loa Angeles, CA 90071 Attn: Warren Shoun
RJR TECHNICAL COMPANY 1100 Reynolds Blvd. Winston-Salem, NC 27102 Attn: Peter Valenti
RSA ARCHITECTS 501 1 MacFarland Lane Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Attn: Richard Schoen
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Attn: M. F. Lamorte
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOC. 50 Church Street Cambridge, MA 02 138 Attn: James Levitt
RICHWAY ENTERPRISES 6752 Rockglen Ave, San Diego, CA 92111 Attn: Richard L. Quincey
RICHWAY ENTP., INC. c/o Pacific Locations 250 First Street, Suite 250 Claremont, CA 9171' Attn: Jack D. Richway
RIDGEWAY ENTERPRISES 8181 Tapin Via Cucumonga, CA 91730 Attn: Francis J. Van Stralen
SALT RIVER PROJECT P. O. Box 1980 Phoenix, AZ 85001 Attn : Steve Chalmers
SAN DIEGO GAS ELECTRIC CO. 110 W. A Street Box 1831 San Diego, CA 92112 Attn: Wes Goodwin
SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY Dept. of Physics San Diego CA 92182 Attn : Alan R. Sweedler
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS, INC. 4249 Lomac Street Suite C Montgomery, AL 36106 Attn: Allen Gunn
SERI (4) 1617 Cole Blvd. Golden, CO 80401 Attn: Richard DeBlasio
L. Kazmerski T. Surek E. Witt D. Hawkins
SORIO (2) 3092 Broadway Cleveland, OR 44115 Attn : L. Tran
R. Cull
47
SOLAR ELECTRIC CO. OF NM 2700 Espanola HE Albuquerque, NM 87 110 Attn: Steve Verchinski
SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRY ASSN. 1156 15th Street NW Suite 520 Washington, DC 20005 Attn: Charlie Gay
SOLAR INITIATIVE Citicorp Plaza, Suite 900 180 Grand Avenue Oakland, CA 9 4612 Attn: Jerry Yudelson
SOLAR INVERTER 8480 Cliffridge Lane LaJolla, CA 92037 Attn: James Ross
SOLAR UTILITY NETWORK P.O. Box 4590 Fo rt Worth, TX 76 106 Attn: S. A. Varnoos
SOLAREX CORpORATION (2) 1335 Piccard Drive Rockville, MD 20850 Attn: Daniel Bumb
Hal Macomber
SOLAVOLT INTERNATIONAL 3646 E. Atlanta Phoenix, AZ 85040 Attn: Bruce Larson
SOLEC INT'L INC. 12533 Chadron Avenue Hawthorne, CA 90250 Attn: George McClure
David R. Killington Ishaq Shahryar
SOLLOS, INC. 1519 Comstock Avenue Los Angeles , CA 90024 Attn : Milo Ma cha
SOUTHERN CAL EDISON P. O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 Attn : N. Patapoff
SPECIALTY CONCEPTS, INC . 9025 Eton Ave, Ste 0 Canoga Park, CA 91304 Attn: Tom B. Philp
SPECTROLAB, INC. 12500 Gladstone Avenue Sylmar, CA 91342 Attn: Alex Garcia
SPIRE CORPORATION Patriots Park Bedford, MA 01730 Attn: Anthony Armini
Rogert G. Little Mark B. Spitzer
SPRINGBORN LABORATORIES, INC. 10 Springborn Center Enfield, CT 06082 Attn: Bernard Baum
Paul B. Willis
STANDARD OIL COMPANY (Ohio) 1608 Midland Bldg. Cleveland, OH 44115 Attn: Toby K. Alfred
STANDARD OIL COMPANY (Ohio) 4440 Warrensville Center Rd. Cleve land , OH 44128 Attn: Ronald C. Cu l l
STRATEGIES UNLIMITED 201 San Antonio Circle Suite 205 Mt. View, CA 9 4040
SUNELCO CORP. 1619 Sou t h Rancho Santa Fe Rd. San Marcos, CA 9 1007 Attn: Ed M. Bardwin
Fred Nobile Robert A. Shade, Jr.
SUPERWAVE TECHNOLOGY 2895 Northwestern Pky. Santa Clara, CA 95 125 Attn: Bruce Minaee
SYSTEMS DEL SOL 10933 Los Alamitos Blvd. Los Alamitos, CA 90720 Attn: Craig P. Boyd
Robert Steele
48
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 7 15 Market St. Chattanooga, TN 37401 Attn: Dexter Stanphill
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC. P.O. Box 225936, MIS 147 Dallas, TX 75265 Attn: Jules D. Levine
THE GRINDELWALD LETTER P.O . Box 70 Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546 Attn: Alfred H. Canada
tHE PASADENA PROJECt 3858 East Colorado Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91107 Attn: Andrew O. Jensen
Edward A. Sequeira
UHL & LOPEZ ENGRS. 213 Truman NE Albuquerque, NM 87108 Attn: Dave Penasa
USAF P.O. Box 5400 Albuquerque, NM 87 11 5 Attn: John Hanson
UNION CARBIDE CORPORAtION Old Ridgeburn Road Danbury, CT 06817 Attn : James L. Young
UNION CARBIDE CORPORAT I ON (2) 3333 Index Street Washougal, WA 98671 Attn: Sridhar K. Iya
Hiroshi Morihara
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA , LOS ANGELES (2)
Electrical Engineering Department 7732 Boetler Hall Los Angeles, CA 90024 Attn: Fred Allen
Patricia D. Sparks
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA El ectrical Engineering Gainesville, FL 326 11 Attn: Fredrik A. Lindholm
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS- CHICAGO Civil Engineering Mechanical and Meta l lurgy Dept . Chicago, IL 60680 Attn: Steven Dany l uk
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Department of Electrical Engineering 308 Moore 02 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Attn : Martin Wolf
UNI VERS I TY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A University Park Los Ange l es, CA 90089-1 112 Attn: Randell T. Swimm
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT ARLINGTON Electrical Engr . Dept . Arl i ngton, TX 76019 Attn: Jack Fitzer
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Joint Center for Graduate Study 100 Sprou t Road Richl and, WA 99352 Attn: Larry C. Olsen
WEOTECH CORPORATION 4226 N. Sh8yd8 l e Covina, CA 9 1722 Attn : Emi l io Font
WES CONSULTING, INC. 20380 Town Cen t e r Lane , Suite 170 Cuper tino, CA 950 14 Attn : Wayne E. Shannon
WESTINGHOUSE 5301 Central NE Albuquerque, NM 87108 Attn: B. Weidle
WESTINGHOUSE/AESO (2) P.O. Box 10864 Pittsburgh, PA 15236 Attn : D. R. Roberts
E. Ray
WESTINGHOUSE 13 10 Beul ah Road Pittsburgh , PA 15235 Attn: Peter Wood
4 9-50
OMNI ON Rt . 2 Box 44A Mukwonago, WI 53 149 At t n: Hans Meyer
1251 w. Boyer 2363 H. Barnett 2364 w. Bower 2364 B. Brumley 2525 R. Clark 2525 J . Freese 3632 T. Baca 6000 E. Beck.ner 6200 v. Dugan 6220 D. Schueler 622 1 J. Cannon 622 1 R. Lundgren 6221 D. Menicucci 622 1 B. Petterson 6221 M. Thomas (25) 622 1 E. Boes 6223 G. Jones 6223 T. Key 6223 H. Post 6223 J. Stevens 6224 D. Arvizu 6224 L. Beavis 6224 A. Maish 6224 c. Stil lwe l l 6227 J . Leonard 8424 M. A. Pound 3 t 4 1 c. M. Ostrander ( 5)
3 15 1 w. L. Garner ( 3)
3154-3 c . H. DaUn ( 28) for DOE/TIC ( UnUmi ted release)